Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/6106/2022 of RAJESH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2023
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH A T I N D O R E BEFORE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDOR E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6106 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
RAJESH S/O MADHUSINGH SOLANKI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MAJDURI R/O VIDAYAK NAGAR, PAWASA UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(MS.SHALU MEHTA , LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT) .
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE STATION PAWASA UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
( MS. MEHUL SHUKLA, LEARNED PL FOR THE RESPONDENT/STATE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This appeal coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J U D G M E N T
Appellant has filed this appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 16.06.2022 passed by Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Sessions Trial No.207/2020, whereby trial Court has convicted appellant under section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.500/-; in default of payment of fine, further SI for one month.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, submits that he is not challenging impugned judgment on merits and is confining his argument to sentence only.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.
4. So far as conviction is concerned, I have gone through the evidence adduced by the prosecution and examined it minutely. From perusal of overall evidence on record, it is clearly established that learned trial Court did not commit any error in convicting the appellant under section 324 of the IPC. Hence, findings recorded by the trial Court with respect to conviction are affirmed.
5. So far as sentence is concerned, learned trial Court has sentenced appellant under section 324 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 01 year with fine of Rs.500/- with further default stipulation. Perusal of medical evidence reveals that in the instant case, injured/complainant has sustained one injury on fingers of right hand. Appellant has remained in custody from 10.09.2020 to 16.09.2020. Hence, ends of justice would be served if appellant is sentenced with the period already undergone and fine amount is enhanced.
6. Hence, in view of above facts and circumstances of the case, appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed and appellant is sentenced with period already undergone and fine amount is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.5,000/-. After realization of above fine amount, a sum of Rs.3,000/- be paid to injured/complainant Kamal as compensation.
7. Appellant is directed to deposit aforesaid fine amount within a period of three months from today, failing which he shall surrender before the trial Court to undergo remaining sentence of imprisonment. Fine amount, if any already deposited, shall be adjusted against the enhanced fine amount.
8. In the result, appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
hk/